Vincent Ross Siemer v Clare O�Brien and Attorney-General

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 32/2015
[2015] NZSC 64

BETWEEN

VINCENT ROSS SIEMER
Applicant

AND

CLARE O'BRIEN
First Respondent

ATTORNEY-GENERAL
Second Respondent

Court:	Elias CJ, WilliamYoung and O'Regan JJ
Counsel:	V R Siemer in person D L Harris for First and Second Respondents
Judgment:	15 May 2015

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

B We make no award of costs.
____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

The applicant seeks leave to appeal against a procedural direction given by White J[1] in the Court of Appeal dismissing a challenge by the applicant to the participation by the second respondent in an appeal to the Court of Appeal.
[1]Siemer v O’Brien CA 693/2014, 26 March 2015.
White J said the applicant’s challenge to the position of the second respondent was unarguable. The applicant had suggested that Crown counsel had misrepresented the position of the second respondent. White J found there had been no misrepresentation.
This Court has already ruled that the applicant’s argument against the second respondent’s participation in the proceedings was not an arguable point, in a decision dealing with an application for leave to appeal directly to this Court, Siemer v O’Brien.[2] This Court said:[3]
… the application does not raise any arguable point. It is commonplace for judicial and other officers to abide the decision of the court and, if there is no other contradictor, for the Attorney-General to appear and make submissions.
[2]Siemer v O’Brien [2015] NZSC 13.
[3]At [5].
The present application is essentially a re-litigation of the same point. As the point the applicant seeks to raise in his intended appeal to this Court is unarguable, his application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
Costs of $2,500 were awarded to the second respondent in relation to another application, SC 24/2015.[4] As the second respondent’s submissions related to both that matter and this one, only one award of costs is warranted. We therefore make no award in relation to the present application.
[4]Siemer v O’Brien [2015] NZSC 63 at [4].

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for the Respondents

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Vincent Ross Siemer, the applicant, sought leave to appeal against a procedural direction given by White J in the Court of Appeal, which dismissed Siemer's challenge to the participation of the second respondent, the Attorney-General, in an appeal to the Court of Appeal. Siemer alleged that Crown counsel had misrepresented the position of the second respondent, a claim White J found to be unsubstantiated. This Court had previously ruled that Siemer's challenge to the second respondent's participation was not arguable, a decision which remains applicable to the present application. The Court found that the applicant's intended appeal raised the same unarguable point, and consequently dismissed the application for leave to appeal.

The legal issues before the Court were whether the applicant's challenge to the second respondent's participation was arguable and whether the applicant's application for leave to appeal was justified. The Court found that the applicant's challenge was not arguable, as it had already been ruled upon and found to lack merit. Furthermore, the Court held that the applicant's application for leave to appeal was not justified, as it was essentially a re-litigation of the same unarguable point. The Court also declined to make an award of costs in relation to the present application, as the second respondent's submissions had related to another matter as well.

In dismissing the application for leave to appeal, the Court held that the applicant's challenge to the second respondent's participation was unarguable, and that the intended appeal raised the same point. The Court found that the applicant's application was not justified, and declined to award costs in relation to the present application. The Court's decision reinforces the principle that it is commonplace for judicial and other officers to abide by the decision of the court, and for the Attorney-General to appear and make submissions if there is no other contradictor.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established